Daniel Dykema v. Commissioner of Irs

Eighth Circuit

Daniel Dykema v. Commissioner of Irs

447 F. App'x 757

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

Docket11-2805

StatusUnpublished

This text of 447 F. App'x 757 (Daniel Dykema v. Commissioner of Irs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Dykema v. Commissioner of Irs, 447 F. App'x 757 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Dykema appeals a decision of the tax court 1 which dismissed his petition challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, upheld the assessments set forth in the notice of deficiency, and imposed sanctions against him for asserting frivolous arguments. The Commissioner urges affir-mance and has moved for sanctions on appeal.

After careful review, we conclude that dismissal of Dykema’s petition was appro *758 priate for the reasons explained by the tax court. We also agree with the tax court that Dykema’s arguments below were frivolous, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of sanctions.

As to the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions on appeal, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See Fed. R.App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912. In the present appeal, Dykema has raised the same tax-protestor arguments he asserted below, all of which have been repeatedly rejected by the courts as frivolous. Cf. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (in government’s action to recover back taxes from tax protestor defendants, noting that appellate court had previously held wages are within Code’s definition of income, and rejecting defendants’ argument that they were not citizens of United States but rather were citizens of “Republic of Minnesota” who were not subject to income tax); see also United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405, 412 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (noting that court previously had rejected as “patently frivolous” and “absurd” argument that income derived from sources within United States is non-taxable). In these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. See Gerads, 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting government’s request that court impose sanctions against appellants for bringing frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments).

Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $5,000.

1

. The Honorable Mark V. Holmes, United States Tax Court Judge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Dykema appeals a decision of the tax court 1 which dismissed his petition challenging a notice of deficiency issued by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, upheld the assessments set forth in the notice of deficiency, and imposed sanctions against him for asserting frivolous arguments. The Commissioner urges affir-mance and has moved for sanctions on appeal.

After careful review, we conclude that dismissal of Dykema’s petition was appro *758 priate for the reasons explained by the tax court. We also agree with the tax court that Dykema’s arguments below were frivolous, and we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s imposition of sanctions.

As to the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions on appeal, we may award “just damages” and single or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See Fed. R.App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1912. In the present appeal, Dykema has raised the same tax-protestor arguments he asserted below, all of which have been repeatedly rejected by the courts as frivolous. Cf. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (in government’s action to recover back taxes from tax protestor defendants, noting that appellate court had previously held wages are within Code’s definition of income, and rejecting defendants’ argument that they were not citizens of United States but rather were citizens of “Republic of Minnesota” who were not subject to income tax); see also United States v. Clayton, 506 F.3d 405, 412 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (noting that court previously had rejected as “patently frivolous” and “absurd” argument that income derived from sources within United States is non-taxable). In these circumstances, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. See Gerads, 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting government’s request that court impose sanctions against appellants for bringing frivolous appeal based on discredited, tax-protestor arguments).

Accordingly, we affirm the tax court’s judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion for sanctions in the amount of $5,000.

1

. The Honorable Mark V. Holmes, United States Tax Court Judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 F. App'x 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-dykema-v-commissioner-of-irs-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack